What's the point of 'testing' if the results can't be used to falsify the claim? Axions, WIMPS and sterile neutrino models have all be "tested" and failed those tests.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No; what they are doing there is testing what they think are the most likely hypotheses.
1. Consensus of opinion.
2. Cause-and-Effect.
It's not a simple matter of one experiment not detecting one type of particle. There is a variety of different WIMPs that could fit the models, and not finding difficult to detect particles doesn't falsify the hypothesis; so many experiments must be done, preferably with different instruments, to raise the probability that a particular particle is not involved to the required level (usually 5-sigma). They have already narrowed the field down considerably, but they started with the 'low-hanging fruit', the most easily detectable candidates, so detection becomes more difficult as they progress.What's the point of 'testing' if the results can't be used to falsify the claim? Axions, WIMPS and sterile neutrino models have all be "tested" and failed those tests.
It's not a simple matter of one experiment not detecting one type of particle. There is a variety of different WIMPs that could fit the models, and not finding difficult to detect particles doesn't falsify the hypothesis; so many experiments must be done, preferably with different instruments, to raise the probability that a particular particle is not involved to the required level (usually 5-sigma). They have already narrowed the field down considerably, but they started with the 'low-hanging fruit', the most easily detectable candidates, so detection becomes more difficult as they progress.
I thought you knew something about this kind of research, given your comments about it; are we seeing the Dunning-Kruger effect at work?
No complaints, just an explanation of why your proposal for FTL signaling in a cosmic-scale brain is pseudoscience.I love how you complain about me introducing just *one* speculated hypothetical entity into a cosmology theory yet you're fine putting four of them into a different cosmology theory, one of which has already failed billions of dollars with of 'tests'. What's it take to kill off a bad hypothesis anyway?
Oops, sorry about that, there was supposed to be a smiley in there - I've fixed it now. It was a gentle jibe to point out that for someone who persistently disparages the work of the mainstream astronomical community, to say things that imply no substantive understanding of that work, leads to questions of - as you put it - scientific competence.What's the point of engaging in personal attacks?
In science, a 'failed' test is as important and telling as a 'successful' test - it tells you that a potential explanation has been ruled out.... it's definitely not going to make all those failed "tests" go away...
No complaints, just an explanation of why your proposal for FTL signaling in a cosmic-scale brain is pseudoscience.
You're keen on telling me what I'm fine with although I haven't expressed an opinion; but the difference between your proposal and theirs is that I've seen the evidence for the phenomena they're trying to explain,
I've seen the reasoning and the physics behind the hypotheses they've proposed to explain those phenomena,
and I've seen the explanations for how they're testing those hypotheses.
On the other hand, you've proposed an unexplained faster-than-light 'field' for signalling in a cosmic-scale brain for which there is no evidence, no apparent reason, and no clear explanation.
In other words, you propose a mechanism that contravenes the known laws of physics to explain something you made up; i.e. it's pseudoscience.
Oops, sorry about that, there was supposed to be a smiley in there - I've fixed it now. It was a gentle jibe to point out that for someone who persistently disparages the work of the mainstream astronomical community, to say things that imply no substantive understanding of that work, leads to questions of - as you put it - scientific competence.
In science, a 'failed' test is as important and telling as a 'successful' test - it tells you that a potential explanation has been ruled out.
Personally, I am fascinated to see how the dark matter search unfolds; whether they find a dark matter particle or not, there will be interesting new science as a result.
Do your own research.Be specific then. What "evidence" do you believe supports the "exotic matter" claim?
Falsification is somewhat of a mirage; large parts of science consist of strictly unfalsifiable hypotheses - particularly existential hypotheses; i.e. statements that assert the existence of something cannot be falsified by failure to find it (caveat below). The point of testing these hypotheses is to find that something, or raise your confidence level that it doesn't exist to the point of being beyond reasonable doubt (this implies constrained circumstances; e.g. you can test whether a dragon exists in your garage, but not in general).What's the point of 'testing' if it can't be falsified by those tests?
If one reason was people's beliefs in spiritual experiences, I've explained that there are far better explanations; I don't recall the other. I was after a clear explanation of how you came to your 'cosmic brain' idea.I gave you two good "reasons", and no hypothetical entity has a "clear explanation".
Guth's inflation was proposed to explain and integrate a number of unexplained and seemingly unrelated observations, which it did (and more) successfully. There are a number of potential explanations that are consistent with fundamental physical laws, including the Higgs field, if it couples to gravity (e.g. Inflation & Higgs, Inflation and the Higgs scalar, etc.). Whether Penrose is right remains to be seen, but as Guth proposed inflation partly to account for the flatness problem, their ideas are clearly in conflict.What doesn't that same logic apply to Alan Guth's mythical 'inflation' thingy? According to Penrose it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that we'd end up with a flat universe *with* inflation than without it.
My concept of scientific competence is informed by the work of people who've spent their education and careers working in the field, rather than some bloke on the internet who is favours fringe theories, display little understanding of basic physics or science in general, and thinks he knows better than the experts. YMMV.Collectively they can't name a single source of dark energy, and they cant explain how and why it maintains constant density during expansion. They can't explain why the whole 'smaller than a proton" thing didn't implode instantly either. Your concept of "scientific competence" seems dubious at best all things considered.
It's impossible to say - they may find a candidate particle, or they may exhaust the accessible candidates, or a better solution may come along, or it may be demonstrated that a particle cannot explain the phenomenon.What exactly does it take to kill off the idea during your lifetime?
Gravitational lensing shows dark matter must be relatively small, and that quantity of macro-scale matter would accrete into large objects; gas and dust would fit, but would glow (ie. not be dark); and big bang nucleosynthesis calculations and the CMBR asymmetries indicate that there's far too little dark baryonic matter to account for the observed phenomena. I hear there are plenty more reasons that are less amenable to simple explanation.How do you know for a fact that it's not just "ordinary matter" that generates those lensing patterns and rotation patterns...?
I have no beliefs about it, falsifiable or otherwise. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. If a scientist says they 'believe' that X or Y is true, what they mean is they think it's the best available or most likely explanation - and they acknowledge that it may be wrong. If that's not what they mean, they're not being scientific about it.If your beliefs can't be falsified, how can it be considered "science" rather than 'unwavering faith in the unseen'?
Do your own research.
Falsification is somewhat of a mirage; large parts of science consist of strictly unfalsifiable hypotheses - particularly existential hypotheses; i.e. statements that assert the existence of something cannot be falsified by failure to find it (caveat below). The point of testing these hypotheses is to find that something, or raise your confidence level that it doesn't exist to the point of being beyond reasonable doubt (this implies constrained circumstances; e.g. you can test whether a dragon exists in your garage, but not in general).
If one reason was people's beliefs in spiritual experiences, I've explained that there are far better explanations;
I don't recall the other. I was after a clear explanation of how you came to your 'cosmic brain' idea.
Guth's inflation was proposed to explain and integrate a number of unexplained and seemingly unrelated observations, which it did (and more) successfully.
There are a number of potential explanations that are consistent with fundamental physical laws, including the Higgs field, if it couples to gravity (e.g. Inflation & Higgs, Inflation and the Higgs scalar, etc.).
Whether Penrose is right remains to be seen, but as Guth proposed inflation partly to account for the flatness problem, their ideas are clearly in conflict.
My concept of scientific competence is informed by the work of people who've spent their education and careers working in the field,
rather than some bloke on the internet who is favours fringe theories,
display little understanding of basic physics or science in general,
and thinks he knows better than the experts. YMMV.
It's impossible to say - they may find a candidate particle, or they may exhaust the accessible candidates, or a better solution may come along, or it may be demonstrated that a particle cannot explain the phenomenon.
Gravitational lensing shows dark matter must be relatively small,
and that quantity of macro-scale matter would accrete into large objects; gas and dust would fit, but would glow (ie. not be dark);
and big bang nucleosynthesis calculations and the CMBR asymmetries indicate that there's far too little dark baryonic matter to account for the observed phenomena.
I hear there are plenty more reasons that are less amenable to simple explanation.
I have no beliefs about it, falsifiable or otherwise.
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. If a scientist says they 'believe' that X or Y is true, what they mean is they think it's the best available or most likely explanation - and they acknowledge that it may be wrong. If that's not what they mean, they're not being scientific about it.
As for falsifiability, Popper's ideal is unachievable; in reality, much of science is inductive, and good science has been falsified - see Popper's Falsification.
The evidence isn't dependent on my opinion. This will point you to the evidence.I've done my own research and I don't see any tangible evidence to support the idea. I was specifically interested in *your* opinion, not my own.
There are unexplained phenomena to be explained that have the effect of extra hidden mass. I don't know what the explanation is; I have no beliefs about that explanation....how will you know if dark matter does not actually exist in your own lifetime if you simply "assume" it does exist and the outcome of experiments won't/can't change that "belief"? Usually the burden of proof works the other way around, and a lack of evidence equates to a lack of belief.
By the objective criteria of abduction (testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, and conservatism) the evolutionary explanation is far better. Of course there must always be a degree of subjectivity in applying such criteria, but you're welcome to apply the criteria to your claim and we can compare results.That's a subjective belief however and you're also in the minority.
A simulation of the structure of the 'cosmic web' of galaxy superclusters bears a superficial resemblance to the connectivity of a single neuron; and a simulation of neutron star molecular dynamics generates a structure similar to endoplasmic reticulum, an organelle found in all eukaryotic cells (see the published paper for a rational interpretation).The question then arises, "Why do the mass layout patterns and current flow patterns of the universe look so much like the "intelligence" centers of living organisms on Earth?
GR and QM are not contradictory over the bulk of their regimes, they're just different ways of modeling the same thing. Most physicists think GR is an approximation to a complete theory of quantum gravity. But I'm not an expert in this, I'm reporting what they say.How would it "couple" to a GR oriented definition of gravity since GR is the theory that defines gravity in LCDM? It sound's like you want your QM cake but you want to eat your GR cake everywhere else.
You wait for the people who know what they're doing to sort it out. As Feynman said, "I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."So how do I decide who's right and who's wrong? It's not like I can go to the lab and find out.
Welcome back to the real world.Be that as it may, even after all those years of studying this stuff they're still ultimately relying upon 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the universe... It's not like they even profess to have all the answers, in fact they mostly have no answers at all.
Well, no. Once Darwin & Wallace published, the TOE was accepted surprisingly quickly in the scientific sphere - especially considering most of the leading scientists believed in the special creation of humans.Evolutionary theory was once a "fringe theory" if all we're talking about is 'popularity'.
Meh - I'm just judging by what you say. It was you that suggested a cosmic scale brain analogous to biological brains, signalling through plasma 'wires' or light - which, to anyone who knows the size of the observable universe in light-years - or even just the local cluster (10 million ly) , is trivially absurd.That's just nonsense. I know far more about LCDM that most LCDM proponents know about EU/PC theory. You seem to take the low road in debate at times.
Lol! Someone probably knows homeopathy better than any doctor, and someone probably knows astrology better than any astronomer.I know EU/PC better than any LCDM proponent on the planet.
Nope; their model is what it is - a rational attempt to explain phenomena; whereas your cosmic brain idea is a made-up fantasy of pseudoscience.Yet you're defending their model which does indicate "belief".
Welcome to the real world.Well then falsification becomes highly problematic for all hypothetical constructs and concepts.
You seem to explain away what Jesus clearly taught that a person must be born again by the (Supernatural encounter) of the Holy Spirit - and that the Kingdom of God is presently in our midst (higher powers and supernatural activity).How does common sense support anything supernatural? My common sense says why invoke no evidenced invisible natural law defying beings that different people say different things about to "explain" things that we already know or none of us know? That is not good sense, not at all. I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no good evidence for any of it as of yet, not because I think it isn't common sense. Common sense is only good sense when we have knowledge behind it. And it still is not the best tool we have.
In STEM fields only math has proof. The rest have evidence and solid applications. If you are speaking in a legal or layman sense than science does produce proofs. I'm pretty sure many people have told you this already. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is one of the most well evidenced theories there has ever been. If you reject it because you think there isn't enough proof for it then you must reject all scientific theories. But you don't, because you know science works and most other scientific theories you don't think affect your biblical interpretation or upset your faith beliefs.
The evidence isn't dependent on my opinion. This will point you to the evidence.
There are unexplained phenomena to be explained that have the effect of extra hidden mass. I don't know what the explanation is; I have no beliefs about that explanation.
By the objective criteria of abduction (testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, and conservatism) the evolutionary explanation is far better. Of course there must always be a degree of subjectivity in applying such criteria, but you're welcome to apply the criteria to your claim and we can compare results.
The number of people who endorse a claim has no necessary bearing on its validity.
A simulation of the structure of the 'cosmic web' of galaxy superclusters bears a superficial resemblance to the connectivity of a single neuron; and a simulation of neutron star molecular dynamics generates a structure similar to endoplasmic reticulum, an organelle found in all eukaryotic cells (see the published paper for a rational interpretation).
It's fanciful nonsense.
GR and QM are not contradictory over the bulk of their regimes, they're just different ways of modeling the same thing.
Most physicists think GR is an approximation to a complete theory of quantum gravity. But I'm not an expert in this, I'm reporting what they say.
You wait for the people who know what they're doing to sort it out.
As Feynman said, "I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."
Welcome back to the real world.
Well, no. Once Darwin & Wallace published, the TOE was accepted surprisingly quickly in the scientific sphere - especially considering most of the leading scientists believed in the special creation of humans.
Meh - I'm just judging by what you say.
It was you that suggested a cosmic scale brain analogous to biological brains, signalling through plasma 'wires' or light - which, to anyone who knows the size of the observable universe in light-years - or even just the local cluster (10 million ly) , is trivially absurd.
Lol! Someone probably knows homeopathy better than any doctor, and someone probably knows astrology better than any astronomer.
Nope; their model is what it is - a rational attempt to explain phenomena;
whereas your cosmic brain idea is a made-up fantasy of pseudoscience.
Welcome to the real world.
Nope. Neurons are not current carrying structures, they function by membrane depolarisation. The only current is in the movement of ions across the membrane.Considering the fact that it's also a current carrying structure, I wouldn't call it a superficial resemblance. It also has a functional resemblance as well.
I don't care what attitude you have toward religion.If I had adopted that attitude toward religion, would you accept it too?
It's trivially absurd because the proposed physics obviously won't work. God doesn't come into it - unless you want to invoke miraculous intervention, in which case the physics is irrelevant.It's only trivially absurd to you because while you'll apparently entertain any number of hypothetical constructs in astronomy, anything that implies you might be wrong about the topic of God is simply handwaved away on a personal whim.
I've blessed nothing; the physics you proposed is obvious pseudoscience.Yet you "assume" one hypothetical construct is "pseudoscience' whereas four of them get you personal blessing.
Nope. Neurons are not current carrying structures, they function by membrane depolarisation. The only current is in the movement of ions across the membrane.
I don't care what attitude you have toward religion.
It's trivially absurd because the proposed physics obviously won't work.
God doesn't come into it - unless you want to invoke miraculous intervention, in which case the physics is irrelevant.
I've blessed nothing; the physics you proposed is obvious pseudoscience.
In a major scientific breakthrough, researchers at the University of Cambridge have discovered a way to track the "secret movements" of quantum particles when they are not being observed – a concept which was previously thought to be impossible.
As I said, 'the only current is in the movement of ions across the membrane'. No significant current runs along the axons or dendrites. By all means incorporate this into your fantasy cosmic brain.Er, I hate to break the bad news to you but the movement of charged particles *is* current.They are therefore "current carrying structures".
As I said, 'the only current is in the movement of ions across the membrane'. No significant current runs along the axons or dendrites. By all means incorporate this into your fantasy cosmic brain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?